On Thursday 05 March 2015 10:04:20 Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Rojhalat Ibrahim <imr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > And the interface as proposed in this series is very convenient for obtaining > > all the GPIOs belonging to a group with a single function call and without > > having to know the number of GPIOs within the group beforehand. > > > > So if we want to support different use cases, I think it's quite good as it is. > > People who want to set a group of GPIOs as obtained by gpiod_get_array() can > > do so with a single call to gpiod_set_array(), the only overhead being that > > they have to specify the two elements of struct gpiod_descs explicitly. > > Likewise people who want to set a group of GPIOs obtained with a combination > > of calls to gpiod_get_array() and gpiod_get() can do so too. They just have > > to create that group first. > > > > On the other hand if gpiod_set_array() would require a struct gpiod_descs as > > argument the creation of a group for the second use case would become more > > complicated as you would have to allocate a struct instead of an array, etc. > > > > So let's just keep it the way it is and get this series merged. > > I've merged it. > Thanks. > But can you make a separate patch to Documentation/gpio/consumer.txt > describing the array usecase(s) a bit in detail so people realize when it's > good to use these functions? > Sure. > > About the confusing function names: I would be happy to submit a patch > > renaming gpiod_set_array() to gpiod_set_array_value(), once this has been > > merged. I'm a little concerned about the length of some function names though. > > Isn't gpiod_set_raw_array_value_cansleep() a bit long? > > Just patch it and we'll discuss it... :) > Ok. I'll submit a patch after you've merged patch 4/4 in this series in order to avoid conflicts. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html